Originally Posted by Ecky:
Yeah, but the TMO cannot rule on foul play. Except if it occurs in-goal there may be a way of ruling on it, but (probably) only if it affected the scoring of a try.
Yep. But I really think a little broadening of the ref's ability to refer SOME things needs to be reviewed. Particularly where players are wrongly carded for foul play. There's so much riding on professional matches nowdays that any assistance the ref can be given should be available to him.
Reply
First game under the new law regime.
The Kiwi commentators couldn't help saying "new interpretation" but at least somebody mentioned it wasn't really, it was a new application of the law as it was. "Application" is the better word.
Dickinson did pretty well with it too (a B mark), but not relevant to the crackdown he missed a few knock ons and awarded a free kick to Weepu when he dropped the pill. But that is neither here nor there. Maybe he should have awarded a yellow card earlier than when Toeava got one, but it was a good first step.
What I didn't realise is that the refs are cracking down on the defensive and attacking pillars loitering in front of last feet. That activity formed an important part of Kees Meuws' CV; so he must be shaking his head.
It was good also to see the offside law after kicks enforced. Let's hope this prevails. Sometimes last year I thought I was watching rugby league.
That's just one game - let's not get too excited that rugby may break out in the Super14. Let's see it in the 2nd month. If the law as it is written is still being observed by the referees, I'll warrant that there won't be so many penalties in the tackle/ruck area.
Why? The players will be following the lead of the referees because their coaches will instruct them to do so.
The best predictions are true when you make them.
Reply